An interesting point was raised by one of my commentators in my "To Catch a Thief" post which has inspired me to better formulate my view on film as art. For whatever it is worth, my view on movies is that, at their best, they are "moving paintings" ("moving pictures") more than they are "filmed plays." Partly this is inspired by Mel Gibson's statement about "The Passion of the Christ" that it was a "moving Carravaggio," although I don't think he quite meant it the way I mean it. I think he just meant that the lighting and color scheme was similar to Carravaggio's paintings. I mean it in the sense that the visual element in a good film is primary, in the same way that the music in an opera is ultimately what is primary.Now, the history of opera is replete with various reform movements to better integrate plot, text, acting -even costuming and scenery, into opera. Wagner's operas and his concept of the "Gesamtkunstwerk" being only the most obvious example. (These were greatly needed at times, as some opera singers, with the connivance of the conductor, thought nothing about substituting arias from totally unrelated operas just to show off their voices.) Nonetheless, an opera is primarily a musical art form and thus a "concert version" of an opera (with no staging or acting) is possible. By extension, a play treated as literature to be read is also possible. Of course it loses something, but the study of Shakepearean drama in an English literature class is done all of the time. However, to read a movie script as literature? I think it may work in some cases, but for the most part, one can get more to the essence of a great film by watching it with the sound off, than by reading the script. Something is still missing, but I think LESS of its "nature" (if you can say that about an inanimate thing) is missing.
I suppose it is a controversial opinion which may reflect nothing more than my preference for a certain school of film-making. Certainly there have been great moments of dialogue and monologue in films. However I put this view out as, perhaps, a slight provocation in much the same way that Ezra Pound's statement that "music degenerates the further it moves from poetry and the dance" would have been a provocation in my grad school days. Ah, I can still see the hackles raising and the sound of switch blades clicking when someone would say something like that.
I am just trying to start a friendly rumble.
Anyway, above is a still from "La Dolce Vita," which I really need to blog on at some point in the future.
5 comments:
Actually, for the most part, I agree with you. However, I think that besides the "visual element" plot is equally essential. Plot should come out precisely through the visual element of a movie. I've never tried it, but for a good movie you probably should be able to watch it with sound off and be impressed not only by the beauty of the "moving pictures" before you but also by the story shining forth through the picture. Good films show you rather than tell you what is going on.
Nevertheless, the "what goes on" is important, perhaps more important than the text/story of an opera, though I would say about equal with a painting--in both, the subject is the reason for the art existing and therefore is inseparable with what it is. For instance, we would not say that a pornographic painting (and there are such, though I agree with those who make the distinction between tasteful/artistic nudity and pornography) is a good work of art, nor would we say so for a film. The difference with film is that the painting moves, obviously, so it can do more to tell a story, and that story can either show forth the truth (or some element of the truth) or pervert the truth through its dazzling array of images. If I watched a film that was beautifully shot, extremely lovely to behold in its visual portrayals of things, but evidently (even aside from dialogue/sound) portrayed evil things as as good/beautiful, I could not count that film as a great movie.
Interesting, though I wasn't even getting into the moral side of things - merely the technical/aesthetic. I think I have a predilection right now for art movies in which things are conveyed visually with little to no dialogue. (Although I do enjoy great dialogue, too!) Also, some of these films have a very sketchy plot (e.g. Tati's "Playtime"). It would make a novel weak, but not necessarily a film.
"not necessarily a weak film."
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that perhaps we are trying to be too general about an art form that encompasses many genres. Obviously, the "moving picture-ness" is the essential element, for that is what distinguishes film from the other arts. However, different films set out to do different things. Different directors have different intentions, and you have to identify the intention before you can judge whether or not the film succeeds. It may be that you simply have a preference for the symbolic film, or art film, where others might have a preference for a story-telling film. They each set out to do different things, so I'm not sure whether it's fair to compare them. That having been said, I suppose one can still ask the question as to whether or not a particular genre more or less closely succeeds as pure art, rather than as a vehicle for something else. Is story-telling film less "film qua film," than symbolic film? Is symbolic film actually propaganda? Is a film which merely captures a series of incredibly beautiful images the one most in keeping with the "form" of the art of film? I don't think I can answer any of those questions. I think it would require several courses in film history and the philosophy of film-making, as ridiculous as that may sound. ;) I do think that a film, any film, must somehow capture truth in order for it to be art, because I think that in order for something to be beautiful, it must also be true. (That could get me in a great deal of trouble with most of today's artists and art lovers. Also, excuse me for departing a little from the immediate topic.)
The thing about film as an art medium is that it really is a whole new beast in terms of how to judge it. I would agree that plot, theme, etc must be considered paramount in it. After all, if the film does not portray a vision of reality that is accurate, then it is not real art. This could be because the maker/s are not in contact with reality, in which case the film is more of a lie than anything else, or because they don't care, which makes it kitsch. Film tends to this anyway, especially today, because the film has to be sold, either to critics or to audiences. On the other hand, the form of the film as art does closely resemble that of a painting, at least in many ways. This does relate somewhat to stage direction, in terms of lighting, character placement, angles, and so forth. With technology, the levels of precision and refinement of the film are practically endless. However, without the plot, the movie is worthless as a complete form. The other extreme, is of course, the type of movie that is a book put on film, with little consideration of visual elements, etc. I do agree that those are not films either.
Post a Comment